I did the same thing with the Tarzan book, James. I read the first three, and after the third round myself bored with the series. It seemed to be the first book over and over in different settings. Loved the first one, the second was ok, and by the third, I was done with it.

Take about a hundred Xmas cliches, mix in some wry humor and even a little cogent observation on the human condition, plus some strong and sincere performances, and end up with a movie that makes me tear up about every three minutes.

I've always been surprised that neither Russell Crowe nor James Cromwell were nominated for their performances in "LA Confidential."

********************

I agree that they were both terrific in the film, John, especially Cromwell. But I think the reason that Crowe didn't get a nod was due to him still being relatively unknown as an actor at the time. The film was basically a "breakout" for both Crowe and Pearce, and the director (Chris Hanson) was questioned about casting two unknown actors in key roles. But once Basinger, Spacey, and DeVito signed on the movie had enough "star power" and Hanson moved forward.

That said, given the ensemble cast, Crowe and Cromwell would likely have had to compete in the supporting actor category, and it was a pretty competitive field for the Oscars that year. You had Robin Williams (Good Will Hunting), Burt Reynolds (Boogie Nights), Anthony Hopkins (Amistad), and Greg Kinnear (As Good As It Gets) all fighting it out for the trophy.

Saw it once in the theaters; again when my wife purchased the DVD; and gave it one last go tonight... yeah, it still sucks.

What the hell went so wrong? The lighting looks bad, the acting is awkward, the dialogue is stilted and unconvincing, the plot is unnecessarily convoluted, the CGI looks abysmal... even the score, from the usually-dependable John Williams, sounds & feels uninspired.

Starts off on the wrong foot almost immediately and never finds a proper groove or tone. Thought I'd give it one more chance, but this will never, ever be a good movie.

I'm officially sticking with the original Indy trilogy only, for the rest of my life!

Wow. That you saw that POS three times deserves some kind of award! I saw it once, in the theatre, and that was enough for me. Didn't need a second (or third!) viewing to determine the franchise went off the rails.

The supernatural, in fictional terms, can be seen as part and parcel of an archeologist's milieu. But aliens? Rather an abrupt turn into CHARIOTS OF THE GODS territory.

++++++++

I understand the concept of what they were going for: Since Harrison Ford (and thus Indiana Jones) had aged 20 years, and Indy was therefore now living in the 1950s, the film would therefore echo a 50s sci-fi B-movie rather than the pulp serials of the 40s.

It’s sort of a neat idea to show the style of Indy’s adventures changing to reflect different decades in real-world pop culture, but the results are: A) CRYSTAL SKULL becomes an inconsistent outlier when set next to the three prior films, which were all set during the 1930s, and all featured supernatural elements; B) Swapping the supernatural for sci-fi does indeed seem far less tonally “correct” for a character who’s rooted in archaeology.

In my slightly apologetic defense, I gave KINGDOM one last looked based on Spielberg and Ford, more than anything else (plus, the film hits its 10-year anniversary next week, I believe).

Sometimes you approach a lousy film years later, based on your love of the director & star's past work and think, "Surely there must be something there that I missed the last time? Maybe it's more decent than I remembered?"

Nope. INDY 4 is a big ol' turd, there's no way around it. I also have to laugh at the hard-sell that Spielberg, Lucas & Co. give the film, all across the DVD extras, saying things along the lines of Ford barely having aged a day, or that Part 4 looks & sits comfortably next to the first three INDY films... nothing could be further from the truth!

Based on the true story of Michael and Lindy Chamberlain, this shows the Australian court case in which the Chamberlains were accused of murdering their baby daughter near Ayers Rock despite their claims she had been killed by a dingo.

Lindy was charged with murder, Michael was charged with accessory to murder after the fact. They were eventually exonerated. I know some aspects of the real-life case. It does seem that there was a mindset that dingoes weren't violent towards humans, that could well have swayed the case against the Chamberlains.

From what I understand, it was a fuck-up from beginning to end, backed up by sensationalist tabloids and people's perceptions about dingoes.

This film isn't an easy watch and does leave a bad taste in the mouth. In any court case, people who are exonerated after being found guilty, and serving time, surely will never be the same again. Unpalatable though the film is, it does make some profound points.

John Williams helps to send SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE into the stratosphere, and IRON MAN perhaps takes a more grounded, believable approach to it character, but pound-for-pound, I really think that BLACK PANTHER could be my new favorite comic book movie of all time.

It helps that's it's also just a great film! Aside from the requisite CGI that can sometimes be a little dodgy in spots, I love just about everything else in this one... the characters, the story, the score, the production design, the direction, the actors, the emotion--it's all here.

The Legend of Tarzan (2016), starring Alexander Skarsgård as Tarzan and Margot Robbie as Jane via Netflix. Not my first time viewing it, but I was out voted. It didn't get better the second time around and I don't know why it wasn't better given today's CGI. And it was too rooted in our world instead of Tarzan's or Edgar Rice Burroughs' idea of Africa.

Funny thing, I just watched a documentary on the Tarzan movies hosted by Gordon Scott on Amazon Prime and it was far more interesting.

JACOB'S LADDER (1990) - my wife and I had both seen this one a few times before we met. I remember seeing it in the theater as a teen when it came out.

We watched it together last night. Held up well for both of us.

Man, I'd forgotten how physically uncomfortable some of the scenes made me; particularly the bathroom/fever ice-in-the-tub scene. You just start to feel...unwell...for lack of a better word as you follow Jacob further and further down the rabbit hole.

And, if I'm not mistaken, was this not the movie that kicked off the whole "jittery-shaky" effect that has pretty much become synonymous with ghosts, apparitions, and the like?

Further on THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING (1975), I checked out the actual story on Project Guttenberg, and found the movie is remarkably faithful. Only the ending is substantially different, and there they cut short of Kipling's version, which was much, much more grim.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum